I would hope that you would keep in mind and evaluate these as they come in, because sometimes you'll get legitimate requests, sometimes they'll be politically inspired requests.

Yes. One of your biggest problems is going to be that you probably won't have the resources that you think are really necessary to get this done.

There's been a consistency of the combatant commanders that that is a program where we can get a lot more for our money.

I don't agree with the Law of the Sea Treaty, and I think there are a lot of deficiencies.

Why don't you do this. You look at the adequacy of the section 1208 and let us know if it looks like it might be a problem.

I'd love to stay up here, but I'm not going to hesitate to dive down and to ask the tough questions.

After my 14th trip over there, to the Iraqi area of responsibility, I came back seeing incredible progress.

You've had a great career. You and I have fought together, for 3 years, what I called the Battle of Vieques.

I've often thought--I look back wistfully at the days of the Cold War, when things were predictable.

I disagree with you on this issue.

Does this bother you?

On the no nuclear testing program, for as long as they have had that I've been concerned whether or not we're actually keeping a credible nuclear deterrent.

This authorization committee has been very straightforward in coming up with funds for train and equip, but also for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP).

I was critical, back during the Clinton administration, when I expected that the North Koreans had a lot greater delivery capability for missiles.

You have always been a real strong supporter of that.

I think it's very important that you do take an assessment of what is in the other commands that can be transferred there.

So you think that you have new tools now that you didn't have before that would give us some level of confidence that we have something that works?

if we do not really utilize the advantages that come with an IMET program, China is doing it.